I'm under the impression that we are required to limit ourselves to "fair use" quotes from MSNBC. Rather than interspersing quotes, I start with my summary and comments and then append some excerpts from the Hardball transcript at the end.

Matthews started out confirming that not one of these Reagan experts had been consulted or contacted by the creators of the miniseries. Most of the discussion concerned the quote regarding homosexuals put into the mouth of CBS's Reagan character when the actress playing Nancy Reagan urges the President to addresss the issue of AIDS: "They that live in sin shall die in sin." Also touched on was the equally dubuious exchange with Lou Wasserman where Wasserman says to Reagan, "People know youre an informer for the black list," and Reagan replies, "Ive never called anybody a Commie who wasnt a Commie".

In brief, all of Matthews' guests strong expressed the view that the AIDS quote was entirely oppossed to everything they knew of Reagans personality, demeanor, and his specific views and attitudes towards the subject of homosexuality. Regarding the other quotes is was clarified that, although Reagan did testify regarding communism in Hollywood, where he had been involved in resisting the efforts of communists to take over various unions in the entertainment industry, he never named names publicly.

EXCERPTS, "die in sin" psuedo-quote:

ANDERSON: Well, Chris, look at this. Like all good pieces of propaganda, most of what theyre saying is correct. Its what they leave out, like the economic recovery. Its the little poison pills they put in, like the one you just quoted. Now thats a false fact. Even the lady who wrote it-whats her name, Eglaus (ph)  admits it was false. And yet the chairman of CBS says we want this to be fair. I suggest he go take a look at the movie hes about to put out. And they still have time to pull out all the poison pills.

[snippage]

ROLLINS: [...] He, like everybody else in the White House, were very concerned about AIDS. It was in its infancy and very few people knew a whole lot about it. We did whatever we could to find it early on. And theres this great myth that he didnt care about it. He cared very deeply about it, and many of his friends in the art world and the Hollywood world were the first victims of it.

[snippage]

CANNON: Well, Chris, I fault Reagan for being a little slow on the AIDS epidemic. But contrary to any homophobia, Ronald Reagan in 1978, before he was president, there was an initiative on the California ballot that would have discriminated against homosexual teachers and it was-it probably wasnt constitutional. There were people then who-I think Ed probably remembers-who advised Ronald Reagan not to take any part in this campaign. He opposed the initiative. I mean, he actually very courageously, I thought, and a lot of people on both sides of the initiative, credit Reagan for defeating that initiative. So I think its really unfair to slam him as anti- gay. He just wasnt. [...] Well, he came from a Hollywood milieu. And so he was used to people who were gay. [...] And he just simply didnt have the prejudices of many of the people around him.

[snippage]

ANDERSON: What Lou says is absolutely correct. I remember once in early 1980 on the campaign plain with issue about what do we do about gay groups that want to see him and demanding things. And he sat us down and he said, Now, look. First of all, he said, I know a lot of gays. I was in Hollywood. And then he reminded us, You know how many of them there are? And then he said, Look, leave them alone. And that was his policy.

EXCERPTS, "Commies" psuedo-quote:

MATTHEWS: [...] Ronald Reagan, quote, Ive never called anybody a Commie who wasnt a Commie. Right of all, they argot here. The lingo. Ed, are you familiar with Ronald Reagan talking like that, in this cartoon-like the old Korean War comic books, Commies? ROLLINS: No. I think-the three of us who have had lots of time around Ronald Reagan know a very gentle man who basically was really a nice person. He was what he appeared to be. He was-he had a great sense of humor, but he would never be disparaging. And was he anti-communist? Yes, he was. Certainly, he had a very strong core. But I just dont imagine any of that to be true.

[snippage]

MATTHEWS: [...] during the investigations, the legitimate investigations back in the early 50s and late 40s, when he was in SAG as president. Did he ever-Is there any record that he ever testified against anybody or turned in anybody? CANNON: No. He was an informant for the FBI. But when he testified, and I reprint some of the testimony in my most recent book. When he testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the counsel, a man named Stripling, was very unhappy with Ronald Reagan because he didnt name names. MATTHEWS: Robert Stripling, he was the chief counsel. He was the guy that got the pumpkin papers, and hes the guy that helped Nixon nail Alger Hiss, yes. ROLLINS: As a matter of fact, if you look back... CANNON: Anyway, if you look at the liberal publications of the day, they praised Ronald Reagans testimony. So for them to rewrite it this way is really wrong.

[snippage]

MATTHEWS: I just want to repeat something somebody said earlier, which I thought was brilliant, which is what they do in Hollywood is they soften up their subject like Ronald Reagan. They show some nice pictures. They say some nice things about them that they cant deny saying nice about them. They do it to soften them up, and theyll put the dagger in. And this is what they did in the movie Nixon. They softened him up in a sentimental way and then stuck the knife right in: hes a drunk; hes a bum; hes a bad guy, a crook. Thats what they always do out there. There is a prejudice that they dont know out there in Hollywood. And I think in this kind of case its too bad you cant sue the bastards. Because what is happening here is clearly, these are late hits.

MATTHEWS: He fought the communists in the labor unions back in the 40s. He was head of the Screen Actors Guild. Hes been through all that fighting. He was a bit more sophisticated... FINEMAN: He was more sophisticated and more knowledgeable, as his letters proved. A lot more thoughtful guy than most people gave him credit for. MATTHEWS: But the fact that he was an Elia Kazan guy, that did what he did. And he never did it. Theres no evidence he ever testified against any other member of the film community. This is just totally fabricated, as far as I can tell, James.

[snippage]

MATTHEWS: I know the Hollywood game. Its played brilliantly by Oliver stone, whos totally incredible. What they do is they soften up their target, and its always a Republican target. Nixon in the movie Nixon, here, Ronald Reagan, a man they despise. They soften it up with sentimentalities and they say nice, obviously things about him, and then they put the dagger in. He was the guy who ratted on people during the Cold War. Or heres another one. In another scene Reagan is confronted by his wife, Nancy, about dealing with the disease AIDS, to which Reagan replies, They that live in sin shall die in sin. What is he, Jeremiah? People dont talk like that. And theres no evidence that he was ever intolerant, ever in his career, towards gay people.

[snippage]

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me tell you something, when they go out there, they use people like Lou Wasserman, who passed away, because hes beyond litigation. They use people who cant sue them, thats why those names are chosen. This is about money. Its about screwing people without facing any legal risk.

SECRET SERVICE AGENT WALKED IN ON NEW YEAR'S SEX PARTY AT WHITE HOUSE!

**Exclusive**

The New Year got off to a bang at the White House where sex was on the menu for some of the partygoers, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!

Celebrities from media and politics along with hundreds of other guests danced the night away at the White House after attending the dramatic New Year's Eve 2000 celebration at the Lincoln Memorial.

But while the first family and guests were boogieing in the New Year, several of the revelers engaged in sex acts in a room off the Rose Garden, according to a disillusioned Secret Service agent.

The agent revealed details of what he witnessed at the party on condition that his identity be protected.

During what one White House aide called the "first-ever disco" at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the agent says he interrupted sex acts taking place in a White House bathroom off the Rose Garden.

"I know it was New Year's Eve, and I know that everyone was celebrating and drinking, but I was completely shocked," said the agent late Sunday. "Three people were together having sex when I walked in on them."

The agent says he immediately recognized one of the participants before he turned around and left the room.

"I was embarrassed and did not know what to do under the circumstances," the agent revealed. "I did not file a report on the incident, I'd probably lose my job."

The agent, who has been stationed at the White House for 5 years, did give the DRUDGE REPORT the name of the guest he recognized -- but the name is being held from publication at this time for privacy concerns.

"I am very hurt to see this type of behavior going on in the White House and to see invited guests carrying on this way," the agent said from Washington.

The White House New Year's Eve guest list featured a galaxy of stars:

Robert Barnett, Williams and Connolly senior partner, and Rita Braver, CBS News; E. J. Dionne, The Washington Post; Bruce Lindsey, assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president, and Cheryl Mills; Terence McAuliffe; Leslie Moonves, CBS Television president and CEO; Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, and Jill Abramson, New York Times Washington editor; Bernard Schwartz, Loral Space and Communications Ltd. chairman and CEO; Jack Nicholson; Will Smith; Elizabeth Taylor and hundreds of others.

The Secret Service agent's shocking story of sex in the White House mirrors charges made in the memoirs of retired FBI agent Gary Aldrich in 1996.

Aldrich claimed sex liaisons between Clinton aides occurred in offices and in the showers of the White House gym.

One incident, Aldrich wrote, involved a White House carpenter who complained his staff was unable to finish repairs in a room because two officials were having sex inside.

Actually, Matthews is just being consistent. I heard him before the 2000 election talking about how the democrats always try to smear the intelligence of Republican candidates. They did it with Reagan and were trying to do it with Bush. In smite of missing a lot because of his liberal views, Matthews is a man with integrity. Wrong many times, but not totally blind. He has always decried this, to his credit.

Since the post was already pulled by the time I got here, at least I got the flavor or it from your post.

I'm not sure I agree with the zotting and pulling of posts like this. Are we so fragile here at FR that we can't wipe the floor with bozos like this? Is our only option to pretnd they don't exist?

I for one feel energized by people like BIAN. He reminds me not to be lazy, not to underestimate the hate and stupidity of the left and to be vigilante. I love to hone my debate skills on these intellectual midgets. Clearly this guy is so intellectually flawed his only comfort is to pull out one of the weakest, more tired tactics of name calling in his attempt to have discourse.

Just my two cents........

64
posted on 10/23/2003 8:54:40 AM PDT
by hilaryrhymeswithrich
(Al Franken is a pimple on the butt of liberalism)

That book, and the one filled with his love letters to Nancy, gave me a view of Reagan that was truly in black and white in truly his own words. Once you read those letters, I defy you to not find him to be charming, witty, funny, with a slightly twisted (in a good andclever way) sense of humor and a truly brilliant man. As much as I thought I loved him before those books, I truly adore him even more now. I miss him and wish I had appreciated him more at the time but I was young.

65
posted on 10/23/2003 8:59:50 AM PDT
by hilaryrhymeswithrich
(Al Franken is a pimple on the butt of liberalism)

So you're the one who bought that book! I used to like and watch little chrissie but, when the chips are down, fair and balanced he is not. It's too bad because I think he shows alot of promise but, he does what he thinks he has to do for the team he plays for.

They are making comments based on scripts that were obtained by The New York Times and other media sources and by the fact that those who were actually around Reagan during these years were not approached for input or commentary.

While I gather from your remark you tryingto point out hypocricy, which is understandable, I am not sure they can be compared apple to apple. The Passion is the view of an historical event, long ago, by a relatively few people which may or may not be legitimate. The Reagan story is about someone in current times and its historical accuracy can be obtained by the actual players and thus not open to "interpretation".

70
posted on 10/23/2003 10:56:00 AM PDT
by hilaryrhymeswithrich
(Al Franken is a pimple on the butt of liberalism)

That would be kind of tough since it hasn't been aired yet, and is probably still being edited. As noted comments have been based on advance scripts that have been making the rounds. Critics are trying to preempt a proxy smear of conservatives as well as a liberal hatchet job on Reagan.

I assume that deleted comment #18 was from Bush_is_a_Nazi. I don't know what he/she said, but disruptors really need to get a life. If they think they can come here and shock anyone or ruin our day, they're as stupid as they think Bush is.

Chris is one liberal who can be counted on to be fair once in a while. I'd rate him not far behind Alan Colmes as a liberal with some sense of integrity and fairness. I also kind of like the smiling, sexy-but-aging blonde liberal attorney/law professor who's often on Fox (her name temporarily escapes my aging brain). She was disgusted by the L.A. Times releasing all the stuff on Schwartzenegger.

Yep, and 21 as well. You can get a flavor for what was said in Stultis's reply in 33. It was the usual mixture of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Maybe it was the screenwriter herself...it'd be in character.

Well, the hit on Reagan was predictable. Ever since Clinton gave it to the country up the a _ _ and the libs backed him all the way, they have had an irrational need to lash out conservatives and conservative icons to distract attention from their own warts. All the liberal dorks are out doing this. James Brolin , Streisand's boy toy, just joins the pack with the other dorks - John Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Gore. It's the dorkacalypse. When they get tired of Reagan they go back to hurling mud at the Pope or some other figure who opposes their slimy culture of death. They're like Vampires at sunrise.

The VLWC is doing a much better job of driving moderates and undecided's towards our VRWC than we are in attracting them.

Well, if practice makes perfect, they oughta be. They've been at it for thirty years solid.

Reagan was the exception, though, at attracting people to the right and/or to the Republican Party. He got literally millions of blue-collar Dems to vote Republican, at least at the top of the ticket. Possibly even more important for the long term was the political talent that rallied to Reagan from the dark side. I'm not sufficiently intimate with all phases of American political history to say so with absolute confidence, but late 70's and early 80's may well have seen the most dramatic transfer of political/policy talent between parties that has ever occured. And how quickly it happened! Jean Kirkpatrick didn't change her registration until 1985, and she was among the foot draggers in that regard.

Of course this (like the economic recovery) is another reality that will surely be unknown to viewers of The Reagans.

Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to resist seeing what they do with it. I will, however, tune it in through the VCR rather than the digital cable box (and tune the later to Fox News) so I don't contribute to ratings.

I was listening to Micheal Reagan, his son, talking today. He said that the WHOLE THING, not just the AIDS quotes, is a hit job. He said there is not a shred of truth in the movie - he didn't recognize either Reagan or Nancy, the way they were represented.

He said they portrayed his Dad as a doofus dumbbell and idiot without a thought in his head. He said they had him cursing and taking the Lords name in vain and he said his father NEVER did or would consider talking like that.

All in all, he was furious and said the family was hurt.

The way he was talking, I don't think he thought that taking out a quote or two would fix it. The whole thing was inaccurate and totally a smear job.

The way he was talking, I don't think he thought that taking out a quote or two would fix it. The whole thing was inaccurate and totally a smear job.

If that's so I pity the fools stupid enough to sponsor the show. Nevertheless, they must be made to feel the pain. If this turns out to be an a-historical smear, rather than just "interpretation" of historical fact, I think we should press for a written and public repudiation from each and every sponsor.

Matthews started out confirming that not one of these Reagan experts had been consulted or contacted by the creators of the miniseries.

What? Barbra Streisand and her puppet husband don't count as "experts" on Reagan?/sarcasm

Seriously, this is what it will take. When even those with liberal political sentiments debunk this as trash, CBS sponsors may start to soften. It's a waste of time to talk to CBS -- only the sponsors matter. (That's how the Left "got" Dr. Laura.)

Chris is one liberal who can be counted on to be fair once in a while.

I agree to an extent, though I almost fell off my chair listening to Matthews that evening. He does sometimes stand up against stereotypes, but only rarely and usually only those for whom he has an ethnic identity. More usually, he is in the forefront of perpetuating stereotypes including current myths about Bush's lies.

And the local affilliates. I'm calling mine, in Dallas/Ft. Worth, next week and asking them not to air this trash.

From the clips, promos and stills I've seen it appears that the openly hostile nature of this pseudo-bio-pic is embedded in the lighting, makeup, music, actors' expressions/demeanor and etc. It doesn't look like it will be possible to "fix" it just by editing out the most egregiously offensive scenes.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.